Airports have become an extremely controversial since the implementation of body scanners. They have caused people to choose to side for or against the use of these scanners as a safety measure at airports. Due to the attacks of 9/11, Lockerbie, the underwear bomber and others, airport security has become a growing issue. This advancement is necessary since it is a matter of public safety, it protects against terrorist attacks and it is not that much of a hassle.Despite the argument against body scanners in airports that say they waste valuable time and it is invasive, they are necessary due to terrorist attacks and threats to people’s safety. Trading some time and privacy for the safety of your life is definitely important.
After the American tragedy of September 11, 2001, airport security became a heated debate that continues today. America must protect itself from terrorist attacks, but some homeland security methods are better than others. In January of 2010, the Obama administration declared that airport passengers from 14 countries, including Pakistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, would be subjected to rigorous screening before flights into the United States (Schneier). Basically, airport security employees would have the right to discriminate against passengers of Arab descent because of the country they were born in. Attempts to improve airport security through racial profiling are unjust, unwarranted, and completely unnecessary.
A strong foundation for Homeland Security is essential in protecting America from further attacks. In the essay “Airport Security is a PC Joke,” Yana Zeltser jokingly states, “The heightened security procedures have started a collection of small metal items such as nail clippers, tweezers or anything pointed” (Zeltser190). Does the constant plundering of carry-ons, women’s make-up bags, and the contents of one’s pocket keep the airlines safer? It is clearly obvious that numerous efforts to improve airport security have been unsuccessful. By attempting to add “protective” guidelines, incorporate “improved” technology and follow the “no profiling” rule; the airlines have fallen short of protecting the real threats to America.
There has always been controversy as to whether pat-downs and body scans should be used in airports to ensure passenger safety. In airports, the security should be allowed to use pat-downs and body scans. Using pat-downs and body scans at airports are beneficial if you have nothing to hide, determines threats better than looks, and prevents plane bombings; however, scanners also send a message that everyone is at terrorist risk, they emit radiation to people, and they violate right to privacy. According to BLeonard, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear. (“Would the use of full-body scanners at airports be respectful of individual rights”1) “Getting searched is better than the alternative especially for people who refuse the search.”(541Inferno 1) When someone refuses to get searched all that does is draws more attention to them as being a suspect and possibly having something.
September 11, 2001 opened the eyes to people showing the treat of terrorism, and the important role airport security plays in the safety of people’s lives. Airport security developed as a result. However, recent tries of terrorist attacks showed use that good is not good enough, and more should be done to better the security system. As technology progresses worldwide, so should the technology and procedures in airports. It should always change so that we are a step ahead of terrorist.
This is especially true at airports where the security measures taken in other countries, such as Britain and Israel, are far more rigid and effective. Given the alarmingly increased numbers of terrorist attacks in the world, it is only prudent to institute and comply with rigid security standards at all airports no matter where they are located. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Most of the security devices being used in airports today are the same as those used in the 1970s when the major concern was hijackings, not terrorist bombings. These machines can detect metal but they cannot detect the sophisticated explosive materials used in today's world.
In this argumentative essay it shows how airport security is not an invasion of privacy just necessary precautions. In the United States it is very clear that we don’t take terrorism lightly we have had many incidents that have had a very negative impact on the way we run things. Even if it seems that things have become stricter or maybe even seem like these procedures are an invasion of privacy, considering the circumstances it is very reasonable. People talk about airport security as if it always has something to do with body scanners or how it makes people feel. The body scanner is a new device that simply takes a scan of a passenger’s body.
Airports should have more security because of drugs, illegal, and terrorist. Airport security systems have had a drastic change since the 9/11 incident. Due to the airports lack of security terrorist over took the planes and crashed them into the twin towers. Another huge part of why they need to improve airport security is drugs. More drugs are brought threw the planes due to the over secure borders along the U.S. Also it is the same for illegal immigrants that want to come to America.
Risks are associated with flying; in order to assure safety, passengers need to receive full body screening. Some anti supporters say that this is not necessary and it can cause health problems. Although passengers do not like the security, airport security serves an important role for the safety of passengers and the safety of everyone. The TSA has made many expensive improvements to make air travel safer. After 911 incident, airport security had to do something immediately.